Developing Rashes

Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. One old insane white guy likes another old insane white guy, two bony-assed lunatics united by a shared desire to blow shit up. Who the fuck cares.

Well, a lot of people care. That's the problem. A lot of people apparently give a shit what a total fucking dessicated horrible freak like Robertson thinks about anything. And a lot of people look at Giuliani and think "great! A shitheaded fascist! Just what we need!"

A serious question. Now, I know, Ron Paul is a nutcase.

But.

How on earth is Ron Paul any more of a dangerous maniac than Rudy Giuliani? How are his views any more extreme or kooky?

Give me a Gold Standard freak annnnnnny day of the week over a shallow martinet who despises civil liberties and buys into wingnutty "Islamofascist" bullshit.

Whose presidency would result in more corpses? Whose would result in more torture?

Don't get me wrong, I think Ron Paul's nuts.

He wouldn't get anywhere near  Rudy's body count, though, were we to calculate the likely results of their hypothetical administrations.

BLUNTLY: Whose thumb do you want on the nuclear trigger? Rudy Giuliani's? Or Ron Paul's?

I am a liberal leftist, I make no apologies. And I think Ron Paul is bananas in a lot of ways.

But: Give him the nukes over Rudy. Please. It's not even close.

Wonderful public discourse we have, no?

Comments

[rich]

I have to laugh...
If you even had a clue...
This has been brewing since Dr. Paul was delivering milk as a teenager
Talk about an entrepreneur!
First a Milkman...
(create the market)
Then become an obstetrician...
Ah the joy of the
free market.....

[Thers]

Thanks Rich.

You're exactly the sort of commentator that we're looking for around here.

[eRobin]

Was that a poem from rich? If so, I pronounce it brilliant!.

[Bas-O-Matic]

My ink is dry...
Do you bake soy croissants?
The Templars fought the long war
First the musselmen!
(Know the enemy)
Then come the Bilderbergers!
Ah, the clarity of mind
That comes with knowledge...

[Zack]

This post sort of underestimates how stupid libertarianism is, though. You have to take into account what sort of indirect casualties would be caused by a hypothetical Paul administration slashing social services left and, uh, left. I.e., it would suck even more to be poor that it does under Bush.

[Thers]

Zack, sure, I can't see how it would be *much* worse under Rudy, frankly.

To put this another way, whose finger do you want on the nuke launch button, Paul's or Rudy's?

[Ben]

This isn't even a stretch - I would be thrilled for a Paul administration versus any of the other Republicans. As for worries about things like the slashing of social services, how would he manage that? Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would be willing to work with him on his legislative priorities.

In fact, a Paul administration could be greatly to the advantage of the Democrats. Were he to win - the lack of Legislative branch cooperation combined with the war toll on our economy and spirits would have his administration looking a lot like Carter's*. Paul would have the ugly job of dealing with the aftermath of the Bush nightmare, the certain scorn which that project will generate (save doing a miraculously good job of it) will then be on the head of a Republican administration, yet he won't further Bush's illegal use of power. To me, that would seem the recipe for a major string of Democratic administrations to follow.

*Of course, I refer to how Carter's domestic effectiveness was perceived.

[SteveB]

Ben's right. On what planet could President Paul order the abolishment of the Department of Education and actually expect that to happen?

How about this: we give Paul four years to get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and to dismantle the American Empire, then hand it over to the Democrat of your choosing. Deal?

[julia]

While my loathing for Giuliani is much greater than it is for the rest, having lived much more up close with him, Paul does nose past him on the insane racist count, beats him on nativism and militias get his panties wet, so of the two if Paul had a chance in hell I'd be more scared of him. He's Pat Buchanan from Texas with glibertarian support. That's pretty scary.

I can wholeheartedly support him for a third party run, possibly with Nader (because let's face it, they were born for each other).

[candymarl]

I admit I've been very hard on Ron Paul re: his racism and sexism. But Ron vs. Rudy? No contest. Would Ron drop THE bomb? Highly unlikely. Would Rudy? First chance he got.

[MikeJ]

"Our guy is stupid and ineffective! Vote for him!"

That doesn't sound like a great way to win votes, but then again I didn't go to the values voter conference. Perhaps you should try that schtick at a similar place.

[Thers]

Mike J:

?

[SteveB]

"Our guy is stupid and ineffective! Vote for him!"

Well, I guess I was arguing that Paul would be ineffective, at least in pursuing his domestic agenda. I think this needs to be said, in response to argument I've heard elsewhere that, because Ron Paul is against public schools, we won't have public schools under a Paul administration.

Right. President Paul would sign some sort of decree, probably on some really special parchment-type paper, with the edges burned to make it look old and neat, and poof! there go your public schools.

My take on the never-gonna-happen Paul Presidency is that the bad stuff he wants to do domestically, like end Social Security, he'd never be able to do, while the good stuff he wants to do internationally, like closing our hundreds of foreign bases, maybe he could do.

Next, I speculate about what I would do if I had the power of invisibility.